Question: Does a Jewish mother name her daughter after herself?
[Administrators note: Similar and related questions have been asked in past and can be seen on the JVO website by entering the following links into your browser:
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=59
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=184
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=237
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=298
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=523
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=870]

According to Sephardic tradition, babies are generally named after living relatives, based on a source from the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 134a), in which a child was named after Rabbi Natan while he was still alive. In many Sephardic families, it is customary for the father to name the first child, using a name of a living relative from the father's side of the family. Rav Ovadiah Yosef says that the source of this custom is Genesis 38: 3-5 (Parashat VaYeshev), where the Torah teaches that Judah named his first son, Er, and his wife named his second son, Onan.

According to Ashkenazic tradition, on the other hand, babies are generally named after deceased relatives, as a means of perpetuating the memory of the deceased relative and as a means of forming a bond between the soul ("neshamah") of the baby and the soul of that deceased relative. Many Ashkenazic halachic authorities say that it is impermissible to name babies after living relatives. One reason for this custom is that naming after a living person might give the appearance of one's waiting for that person to die. Another reason for this custom is that it is considered disrespectful to living relatives to refer to them by their first names or to use their first names in their presence (when calling the grandchildren) while they are still alive (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah (YD) 240:2).

Some Ashkenazic Jews follow the custom of giving the mother the right to name the first child, using a name of a deceased relative from the mother's side of the family.

When naming a baby 'after' a relative (a living relative, in the case of Sephardic Jews, or a deceased relative, in the case of Ashkenazic Jews), the most prevalent tradition is to give the child the exact Hebrew or Yiddish name of the relative. However, some Ashkenazic authorities say that it is impermissible to use the exact Hebrew or Yiddish name of a deceased relative if one of the child's parents has the same Hebrew or Yiddish name as that deceased relative.

If there is a separate 'English' name (as opposed to calling the child the same name in Hebrew/Yiddish and in English/vernacular), some families follow the custom of picking an English name whose first letter has the same sound as the first Hebrew letter of the Hebrew name. For example, a child who is named after a grandmother whose Yiddish name was "Bayla" might be given an English name that begins with a "B," such as "Betty," "Billie," or "Brittany." Alternatively, some families select an English name that has a similar meaning to the relative's Hebrew/Yiddish name. For example, a child who is named after a grandmother whose Yiddish name was "Bayla" or whose Hebrew name was "Yaffa" might be given an English name that also means "beautiful," such as "Belle." For Hebrew or Yiddish names that have a common English equivalent, it is most traditional to bestow that English name upon the baby if the parents aren't comfortable with giving their child a Hebrew or Yiddish name. For example, the common English equivalent for the Hebrew name, "Yosef," is "Joseph." It certainly doesn't make sense to give a child who has the Hebrew name, "Yosef," the English name, "Jacob," because "Jacob" has a clear Hebrew equivalent, which is "Yaakov."

Of course, if all of a couple's closest relatives have already been honored by having a child named after them, there are other Jewish baby naming traditions among both Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews, including the following:

1) giving a baby a name that has some connection to the Jewish holiday that is in closest proximity to the child's birth. For example: A child born on or near Purim might be given the Hebrew name, "Mordechai" or "Esther." A child born on or near Sukkot might be given the Hebrew name, "Hadas" (myrtle tree). A child born on or near Chanukah might be given the Hebrew name "Yehudah" (in honor of Judah/Yehudah Maccabbee) or "Nes-yah" ("miracle of God," in honor of the miracle of the oil) or "Orli" ("my light," in honor of the Chanukah menorah lights.)

2) giving a baby a name from the Torah or Haftarah portion corresponding to the week of birth. For example: A child born last week, might have been given the Hebrew names, "Moshe" or "Miriam," since these biblical heroes featured prominently in Parashat B'Shalach, or the Hebrew names, "Devorah," or "Barak" or "Yael", since these biblical heroes featured prominently in last week’s Haftarah from the Book of Judges/ Shoftim. Or, a child could have been given the Hebrew name "Shir" or "Shirah," in honor of the Song of the Sea (Shirat HaYam) in the Torah portion or the Song of Deborah (Shirat Devorah) in the Haftarah that is read on Shabbat Shirah (The Sabbath of Song).

Perhaps it would be helpful to some people to describe how my husband and I named our three children, following the Ashkenazic tradition of naming after deceased relatives:

1) My daughter, Rivkah, is named after my grandmother, Regina Post z"l, whose Hebrew name was "Rivkah." My daughter has the same name, "Rivkah," in both Hebrew and English. (Incidentally, there are two other relatives in our family who are named after my Babi Gina and both are named "Rivkah" in Hebrew, but not in English; one is named "Rebecca" and the other is named "Rikki.")

2) My daughter, Eva, is named after my great-grandmother, Eva Bodenstein Grundleger z"l, whose Hebrew name was "Chavah." My daughter has the same English name, as well as the same Hebrew name, "Chavah," as my Babciu Eva.

3) My son, Ariel, is named after my husband's great-grandfather, Alvin Wyner z"l, whose Hebrew name was "Avraham." My son's name, which means, "lion of God," is the same in Hebrew and in English. We didn't give him the Hebrew name, "Avraham," because my husband's Hebrew name is "Avraham" & we followed the Ashkenazic custom of NOT bestowing the name of living relative on a child. So, we chose a different name that began with the Hebrew letter, "Aleph,” and the English letter, "A."

Question: What does progressive Judaism (liberal, such as Reform, Reconstructionist, and others) think about dressing and "tziniut" (modesty)? What is its position? Is this different than more traditional views (such as Orthodox, Conservative, or Lubavitch)?
Thank you.

In your question, you place Conservative Judaism in the same category as Orthodoxy. Although Conservative Judaism is generally more traditional than Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism, and although it views halacha (Jewish law) more similarly to the way it is viewed within Orthodoxy than to the way it is viewed within the movements which you call “liberal,” the dress codes within Conservative communities tend to be more similar to the dress codes within the liberal movements than to the dress codes within the traditional movements. Having said that, Conservative Judaism, like Orthodox Judaism, values tz’niut (modest) and believes that the way we dress is a way of reflecting this value and the belief that we are all created b’tzelem Elohim (in God’s image).

In Conservative synagogues, dress codes are often not made explicit. However, there seems to be an “I know it when I see it” standard when it comes to violating the implicit rules of tz’niut (modesty). For example, the following garments would be considered inappropriate for women attending Shabbat or holiday services in most Conservative synagogues: shorts, exposed midriff, exposed cleavage, exposed underwear, tight pants, crops tops, tube tops, strapless dresses, halter tops or dresses, tight skirts or dresses, and short skirts or dresses.

However, what is often not clear is “how tight is too tight?” or “how short is too short?” Within the Conservative movement (as well as within the other movements, including Orthodoxy), there is a range in what is considered to be appropriately tz’nius-dik (modest) dress. Some Conservative organizations (including Solomon Schechter day schools, Camp Ramah, & United Synagogue Youth) specify in written documents “how short is too short.” For example, the applications of all conventions sponsored by USY (United Synagogue Youth, the Conservative movement’s youth group for teenagers) include a written dress policy that specifies the appropriate length of skirts and dresses for teenage girls; some regions permit “fingertip length,” while others require “knee length.”

There is also some variation from one Conservative organization to the next regarding the acceptability of women wearing pants or sleeveless tops. In some Conservative contexts, sleeveless tops and dresses are permissible, as long as most of the shoulder and back is covered; thus, tank tops might be permissible, but dresses with spaghetti straps would be impermissible. Other Conservative organizations do not permit sleeveless tops at all.

In general, within Conservative organizations, there is a more modest standard of dress expected during Shabbat and holiday services than at other times. For example, most synagogues, USY chapters, and Camp Ramah sites permit the wearing of T-shirts, jeans, and shorts during the week, but not on Shabbat during services. All Conservative organizations permit women to wear pants on weekdays (when it’s not a holiday), but not all Conservative synagogues find it acceptable for women to wear pants on Shabbat or holidays. Note: From a halachic perspective, the wearing of pants by a woman is not considered to be so much a violation of the laws of tz’niut (modesty) as it is considered by some Jews, primarily within the Orthodox movement, to be a violation of the prohibition against a woman wearing begged ish (men’s clothing). Within the Conservative movement, women wearing pants is not considered objectionable because women’s pants tend to be noticeably different than men’s pants. In many cases, women’s dress pants are more modest than women’s skirts and dresses!

In addition, most Conservative synagogues tend to have a stricter standard of tz’niut (modesty) on the bimah (raised platform where the Ark containing the Torah is located) than in the rest of the congregation. While some might frown upon a woman wearing a sleeveless dress while she is sitting in the congregation, it is unlikely that she would be asked to cover her shoulders unless she was ascending the bimah. Many Conservative congregations also require women and men to wear a head covering on the bimah as a sign of modesty and/or respect for God; men are expected to wear kippot/yarmulkes (skullcaps), while women may wear hats, lace head ‘doilies,’ chapel caps, or kippot/yarmulkes (skullcaps). The requirement for men or women to wear a tallit (prayer shawl) on the bimah during Shabbat morning services in some Conservative synagogue is not so much an issue of tz’niut (modesty) as it is about signifying that one is a Jewish individual above the age of Bar/Bat Mitzvah (age 13 for boys, age 12 or 13 for girls) who has taken on the responsibility of observing the mitzvot (commandments). Some Conservative synagogues only require men and boys above the age of Bar/Bat Mitzvah to wear a tallit on the bimah; synagogues that are completely egalitarian may also require women and girls above the age of Bat Mitzvah to wear a tallit on the bimah.

One more distinction that is often made within Conservative synagogues (more so than in Orthodox synagogues) with respect to tz’niut (modesty) in dress is that between those leading services and those who are not. As a female rabbi, I have noticed that there seems to be a higher standard of modesty expected of female rabbis and cantors and other sh’lichot tzibbur (female prayer leaders) than there is of other women in the congregation. While it might be perfectly acceptable (or go unnoticed) for a woman to come to shul (synagogue) on Shabbat wearing a short skirt or a sleeveless dress, a female clergy member would most likely be chided for wearing that same type of outfit. This double standard might be a function of the high visibility of the sh’lichat tzibur (prayer leader) on the bimah, which makes the ‘immodest’ clothing all the more noticeable to the entire congregation. Or, it might stem from the view that Conservative rabbis and cantors are expected to serve as role models and spiritual exemplars for the congregation, not only with respect to clothing, but also with respect to all aspects of religious observance.

Question: I saw one of my 14-year-old son’s female friends post something on Facebook that I feel is very dangerous and makes her easy prey for Internet predators. I vaguely know this girl and her mother from around town. Where are the boundaries of ‘lashon hara’ here? Can I say something to the mother?

Question: Is one allowed to pray for an outcome that probably has already happened, but is as of yet unknown to you? ie: good results on a CT, genetic health of a fetus? Is this considered a "tefilla levatala"?

My answer to your question is probably much more detailed and philosophical than you may have expected! So, I’ll give you the short answer upfront and you can delve into the texts and theology that follow if and when you so desire! Bottom line: Praying for a good result on a CT or for the genetic health of a fetus would not be permissible according to the Mishnah[1] because those prayers would not be able to have an effect on the outcomes, which have already been determined. However, if those prayers would help you deal with your personal health issues and anxieties, or if they would enable you to connect spiritually to God, to Jewish traditions, or to your community during your time of need, then, by all means, pray!

Here is my lengthy elaboration to this short response:

The Mishnah teaches that one is not permitted to pray for an outcome that has already been determined[2]. This type of prayer is referred to as “tefillat shav[3]” (“a vain prayer.”) For example, according to the Mishnah, if your wife is pregnant and you pray for a son, that is a “tefillat shav;” the gender outcome has already been determined and prayer cannot change the outcome. Another example of a “tefillat shav” is if you hear cries or screams coming from the direction of your town and you pray that the cries or screams are not coming from your house; again, the outcome has already been determined and prayer cannot change the outcome. Applying this Mishnah to your question, prayers for the genetic health of a fetus or for good results on a CT scan would be considered“tefillot shav”[4] and would not be permissible.

However, if you look at the Gemara[5] and other commentaries on this Mishnah,[6]you will find that our matriarchs, Rachel and Leah, did in fact express gender preferences in their prayers. According to the Gemara, when Rachel was pregnant for the first time and Leah was pregnant for the seventh time, Leah prayed for her child to be a girl and for Rachel’s child to be a boy. Although the two sisters were already pregnant, Leah’s prayer turned out not to be ‘in vain’ after all; by a miracle, Leah’s male fetus was transformed into a girl (i.e. Dena) and Rachel’s female fetus was transformed into a boy (i.e. Joseph). The Gemara dismisses this apparent counterexample to the Mishnah by saying that we cannot refute the Mishnah’s law by means of an extraordinary miraculous event.[7] Since miracles don’t happen in most cases, we can’t expect most prayers of this type to be effective.

Without meaning to sound disrespectful or heretical, I think that this section of the Gemara misses the point of prayer to some extent. Both the Mishnah and the Gemara seem to imply that for pray to be permissible, it has to be effective. But what does it mean for prayer to be effective? If, for example, I pray for a “refuah shelemah” (“complete healing”) for a loved one who is ill and she doesn’t survive her illness, does that mean that my prayer didn’t ‘work’? I think that we need to define the effectiveness of prayer in other ways, not just in terms of whether or not it ‘worked’ in causing a certain outcome to take place.

I do not believe that God is like a giant vending machine, into which we just have to put in the correct amount of money and then get the right product in return. I do not believe that if we say the right prayers and avoid the wrong prayers (such as tefillot shav) that God will respond in appropriate ways. I do not believe that we can control God. And, again, I do not mean to sound heretical, but I do not believe that God controls everything that happens in the universe. For one thing, God does not cause suffering. This may sound unconventional, but this is a legitimate Jewish belief. You need to ask yourself if you believe in a God who has the power to influence the outcome of chemotherapy or surgery, and if God will only do that if the right person recites the right words of prayer in the right language. You need to ask yourself if you believe in a God who would let a person die because a stranger, praying on his behalf, didn’t pray hard enough. I don’t believe in such a God.

So, if I believe that God does not directly control who gets sick and who gets better, then what are we doing when we pray to God for a “refuah shelemah”? What are we doing when we pray to God for a favorable outcome to a medical test or health crisis?

1) First of all, the term “refuah shelemah” “complete healing” does not necessarily mean that the person will literally gain back all of his physical health or stay alive. In fact, this type of thinking may not be realistic or even helpful or desirable for someone who is in pain. When we recite the “Mi She-berach”prayer, we use the terms, “refuat ha-nefesh,” “healing of the spirit,” and “refuat ha-guf,” “healing of the body.” Sometimes, it is realistic to hope for both types of healing (i.e. both the spiritual and the physical.) But, other times, it may only be realistic to hope for one of these types of recovery: either “refuat ha-nefesh”or“refuat ha-guf”. In some cases, it may only be realistic to hope and pray that our loved ones will find the peace of mind and the acceptance of illness that is part of spiritual healing, when physical health is not possible.

2) Secondly, when we pray to God for a “refuah shelemah,” we should realize that prayer is something that we do for ourselves. The Hebrew word for “prayer” is“tefillah.”“Tefillah” comes from the Hebrew verb “l’hitpalel,” which literally means “to judge yourself.” When we pray, we connect to the spiritual dimension of power to change ourselves. In other words, prayer is not a way to change God or to change the world; prayer is a way to change us. And when we change for the better, it is as if God has answered “yes” to our prayers.

3) Thirdly, when we pray to God for a “refuah shelemah,” we should realize that one of the main purposes of prayer is to put us in touch with God, but not in the way many people think. We should not approach God like a beggar asking for favors or a customer presenting God with a shopping list and asking God what it will cost. Prayer is not primarily a matter of asking God to change things. We cannot expect God to make us and to make those we love immune to disease. God cannot do that. We cannot ask God to weave a magic spell around us so that bad things will only happen to other people, and not to us. (That would be morally objectionable, in any event!) People who pray for miracles do not usually get miracles, any more than children who pray for I-pods, good grades, or boyfriends get them as a result of praying. But, people who pray for courage, for the strengthto bear the unbearable, for the ability to remember and appreciate what they haveleft instead of what they have lost very often find that their prayers are answered “yes.” God doesn’t send us suffering; but God gives us the strength to cope with suffering. God can renew our spiritual resources when they run dry. God doesn’t want us to be sick and God didn’t want our loved ones to be sick. God didn’t bring these problems into our lives and God can’t make these problems go away. But Godcan help us be brave when we are sick and frightened. And God can reassure us that we don’t have to face our pains and our fears on our own. We are never alone with God on our side.

4) Finally, beyond putting us in touch with God, prayer puts us in touch with Jewish traditions and with other people in the Jewish community. When we recite psalms or other Hebrew prayers of petition or request, using some of the same words that other Jews have used throughout Jewish history and throughout the world today, we are reminded that other Jews have had and continue to have the same concerns, values, dreams, and pains that we have today. When we recite those prayers in the context of a minyan or other congregational prayer context, we are reminded of this Jewish communal connection.

Even people who do not consider themselves to be ‘religious’ or ‘ritually inclined’ respond to a traditional religious wedding in the presence of friends and family, with familiar ceremonies performed and familiar words spoken, even though their marriage would be just as legal if it were performed in a judge’s chambers. We need to share our simchas, our joys, with other people. So too do we need to share our fears and our grief with other people. The Jewish custom of sitting shiva, the 7-day memorial period after a death, grows out of this need. When we feel so terribly alone, singled out by the hand of fate, when we are tempted to crawl off in a dark corner, we need to be reminded that we are part of a community, that there are people who care about us. Jewish traditions like shiva structure what we do, forcing us to be with people and to let them into our lives. When a mourner attends services to recite the Mourners’ Kaddish for 11 months after the death of a parent, she feels the context of a supportive, sympathetic community around her. She sees and hears other mourners and she feels less singled out by adverse fate. She is comforted by their presence, by being accepted and consoled by the community during her bereavement.

Prayer, whether it is the Mourners’ Kaddish or the “Mi She-berach,” can redeem each of us from isolation. It assures us that we need never feel alone or abandoned. Prayer lets us know that we are part of a greater community and a greater reality, with more depth, more courage, and more of a future than any of us, as individuals, could have by ourselves.

The widow who thought, after the death of her husband, “What do I have to live for now?” yet, in the course of ensuing weeks, found reasons to wake up in the morning; the man who lost his job and thought that he’d never be able to start over again, but started over again any way, where did they get the hope and strength to begin again? In part, the widow and the unemployed man became stronger and more hopeful because they prayed in the context of a concerned community, people who made it clear to them that they cared, andfrom the knowledge that Judaism would always be there for them and God would always be right by their side. But also, the widow and the unemployed man may have realized that they had more internal strength and courage than they ever knew themselves to have had. Their prayers may have helped them tap into hidden internal reserves of faith that were unavailable to them before their experiences of loss.

Whenwe open our hearts in prayer for ourselves or for someone we love who is ill or whose future health is uncertain, we may not be able to get a miracle or avert a tragedy. But, we may discover the people around us, and we may discover the comfort and familiarity of Jewish traditions available to us, and we may discoverGod beside us, and we may discover the strength within ourselves to help us deal with our anxieties and fears.

In these respects, our prayers are always effective.

By all means, pray for good results on a CT scan or for the genetic health of a fetus if you think that the prayers will help you deal with your internal anxieties and fears, connect with God, with Jewish traditions, with the Jewish community, or with other people who stand beside you in prayer in body or in spirit.

[2] “ha-tzo-ek l’she-avar” (“one who screams out about something that has already happened in the past”)

[3] The Hebrew word, “levatala,” that you used in your question may also be translated as “in vain.” However, the halachic phrase for a “vain prayer,” that pertains to the context of your question is“tefillat shav.” “Shav” is the same Hebrew word for “vain” that is used in the 3rd commandment, “Do not take God’s name in vain.” The Hebrew word, “levatala” is used in a different halachic context, that of “b’racha levatala,” “a blessing that is said in vain.” This phrase refers to the recitation of a blessing pertaining to the eating of a food or the performance of a mitzvah in a situation when you do not actually eat the food or perform the mitzvah. For example, some say that you should not recite the Hebrew words, “Baruch Atah Adonai Eloheynu Melech ha-olam ha-motzi lechem min ha-aretz”(“Blessed are You our God Ruler of the universe who brings forth bread from the ground.”) unless one is actually going to eat a piece of bread following the recitation of the blessing. It is for this reason that some people substitute the word “HaShem” for God’s Hebrew name, “ Adonai,” when teaching another person to recite a blessing or when reading about the recitation of a blessing in a book (or in the response to a Jewish Values Online question!), so as not to recite a blessing in vain, “bracha levatala.”

[7] And, if you’re not satisfied with that means of dismissing the Leah/Rachel counterexample, the Gemara provides another reason for dismissing it, by saying that the gender is not determined within the first 40 days of conception and that Leah’s prayer was uttered within the first 40 days of conception

Question: I see a lot of my friends posting “status updates” about their parents, kids or spouses – anecdotes that are funny, but at times seem to be bordering on derogatory. Where is the line between sharing things with friends, or insulting your family or friends in public?

You yourself hinted at the line between permissible and impermissible sharing of anecdotes with the word “derogatory.” The 19th century rabbi, known as the Chafetz Chayim (Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan), defined lashon ha-ra as evil speech that is damaging or harmful to others; he considered both the speaker and the listener to be guilty of lashon ha-ra. If the status updates may cause your friend’s family members embarrassment or other damage,[1] those ‘funny’ anecdotes are considered to be lashon ha-ra and should not be shared.

According to the Chafetz Chayim, the larger the group that hears the lashon ha-ra, the greater the severity of the wrongdoing that has been committed since the victims are degraded in the eyes of more people. When status updates about family members are posted on the internet, there are no limits to the number of people who may ‘hear’ those stories, making this form of lashon ha-ra especially severe. Moreover, a greater number of people will be guilty by ‘listening’ to this lashon ha-ra.

In the Chafetz Chayim’s work, “Sh’mirat Ha-Lashon” (“Guarding of the Tongue”), he enumerates 31 other possible commandments that are violated when one commits the transgression of lashon ha-ra. In the scenario you describe, there are at least two other commandments that may be violated:

#1: If your friend’s family members read copies of these ‘funny’ anecdotes online, your friend is also guilty of the transgression of onaat d’varim (verbal wrongdoing)[2]. According to the Babylonian Talmud[3], saying anything in a person’s presence that angers, insults, or shames him is a grave sin. Embarrassing someone in public is a particularly heinous form of verbal onaah, as the following two teachings convey: “If one shames another person in public, it as though he shed his blood.”[4] and “Better for someone to throw himself into a fiery furnace than to publicly embarrass another person.” [5]

#2: When a person utters derogatory or damaging statements about his/her parents[6](“Honor your father and mother.”)[7] When stories occur in the privacy of one’s home or in the private context of one’s family life, it is considered a breach of family trust and disrespectful to one’s parents to share these private[8] anecdotes with others. A person who posts embarrassing stories about his family[9] in his status updates is guilty of transgressing the 5th commandment as well as committing the sin of lashon ha-ra., he/she is also violating the 5th commandment, “Kabed et avicha v’et imecha”

[1] For example, embarrassment may lead to the damage of a person’s reputation. In some cases, that damage to the person’s reputation may lead to missed job opportunities which may, in turn, lead to financial loss.

[2] The biblical source of this transgression is “V'lo tonu ish et amito.” “And you shall not wrong one another.” (Leviticus 25:17)

[5] Bava Metzia 59a (Chapter 4) We learn this from Judah’s daughter-in-law, Tamar (Genesis 38:25). Judah unwillingly slept with Tamar, when she pretended to be a harlot in order to get Judah to fulfill his levirate marriage obligations. Subsequently, when it was discovered that Tamar had committed adultery, Judah ordered her to be burnt and only rescinded the order when she showed proof to him of his own complicity. Tamar did not step forward to publicly accuse Judah; she had to be found and brought out and only then did she bring forth the proof of Judah's wrongdoing. Tamar did not openly accuse Judah, choosing to die rather than to publicly shame her father-in-law.

[6] or about his/her other family members, which may also cause embarrassment or other damage to his parents

[8] There is a lenient position asserting that if the story took place in the presence of three or more people or if one of the subjects shared the story in the presence of three more people (apey t’lat) and no request was made to keep the story a secret, it is permitted to relate the story to others.

[9] i.e. about his parents or about his siblings or other family member, which, by extension, may cause shame or embarrassment to his parents

Question: Tzedakah (giving to others) is a given in Judaism. I know Maimonides wrote about a ladder of levels of giving. Did he also address to whom one should give (picking recipients)? How about how to prioritize? Is there a Jewish approach to how to do this?

By asking these questions, it is clear that giving tzedakah is important to you. Yasher Koach[1] for striving to align your priorities with Jewish values!

The 8 rungs of tzedakah listed by Maimonides (a.k.a. Rambam)[2] do not include a prioritization scheme regarding recipients[3]. While Rambam’s rungs do not include a description of the types of recipients in priority order, there is such a prioritization scheme in another section of Rambam’s Mishneh Torah[4], which is based on an interpretation of Exodus 22:24[5] in the Babylonian Talmud.[6] According to Rav Huna[7], one should give tzedakah to Jewish people before giving to non-Jewish people, one should give money topoor people before giving to people who aren’t poor, one should give to your poor relativesbefore giving to the poor people in your town, and one should give to the poor of your own town[8] before giving to the poor of another town. Rav Huna’s teachings indicate that tzedakah should be given in priority order, based on religio-ethnic, familial and geographicalproximity.

The familial proximity aspect of Rav Huna’s prioritization scheme is reflected in the following teaching from Sefer HaChassidim[9]: “A rich man used to donate money to the community’s tzedakah fund and ask the administrator to distribute it the poor. Now, this rich man had an impoverished brother; in fact, all of his relatives were destitute. The rabbi told the rich man, “The money you dole out to the poor through the tzedakah fund is nottzedakah. Rather, it causes screams of distress (tze’akah) to your relatives. It is far better that you give these funds to your needy brother and penniless relatives.” “

Implicit in these teachings is the idea that there are concentric circles of prioritywhen it comes to giving tzedakah. If you consider yourself to be in the center of all of the circles, the recipients who should be given tzedakah first are those who are in the concentric circle closest to the center. As you move further and further away from the center, a lower level of priority should be assigned to each circle of potential tzedakahrecipients.

Based on these Jewish teachings, the following is the list of recipients to whom you should give tzedakah in order of priority from high to low (moving outward from the center of the concentric circles to recipients further away from the center):

1. your poor relatives (familial proximity)

2. poor Jewish people and anti-poverty causes in the Jewish community (religio-ethnic proximity)

(e.g. Jewish Federation, MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, NACOEJ: North American Conference on Ethiopian Jewry)

3. poor people who live in your ‘local’ town, including Israeli towns

(geographical proximity)

(e.g. your local chapter of the Interfaith Hospitality Network, an organization that provides housing for homeless families)

(e.g. Bayit Ham, an educational program for poor Ethiopian children in Jerusalem, run by Kehillat Moreshet Avraham)

4. poor people who live in another town

(e.g. CROP Walk, ONE Anti-Poverty Campaign)

5. other Jewish causes/organizations that are not anti-poverty causes (religio-ethnic proximity)

Good luck with your decision-making process as you fulfill the mitzvah of tzedakah!

[1] Literally, the words mean, "May you be assured of strength!" or "May you be 'straightened up' with strength!" As a figure of speech, the expression means, "More power to you!" or "Good job!" This expression is generally used in Ashkenazic synagogues to congratulate someone who has just received an honor on the bimah such as an ark opening or an aliyah to the Torah.

[3] The following is the list of Maimonides’ 8 rungs, in order from lowest (least preferable) to highest (most preferable).

1.giving reluctantly, without being cheerful about it

2.giving cheerfully, but giving a lower amount than one should is able to afford

3.giving, but only when asked by a poor person

4.giving without having to be asked directly to the poor person., with recipient and the giver both knowing each other’s identity

5.giving a donation in such a way that the giver does not the identity of the recipient (however, the recipient does know the identity of the giver)

6.giving a donation in such a way that the recipient doesn’t know the identity of the giver (however, the giver does know the identity of the recipient)

7.giving an anonymous donation to a tzedakah fund, from which money is donated to the poor. (In this scenario, neither the giver nor the recipient know the other’s identity.)

8.giving money that enables a recipient to avoid poverty in the future. (“teaching a person how to fish”= teaching a person a skill or trade, finding him/her a job, or lending him/her money)

Rambam’s list is echoed in the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 249: 6-13

[4]Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Matanot Aniim 7:13: “The poor person who is your relative takes precedence over all others….and…..the poor person of your own town takes precedence over the poor of other towns.”

[5] “Im kesef talveh et ami, et ha-aniimach…….” “If/when you lend money to My nation, the poor person who is with you, do not behave towards him as a creditor.”(Parashat Mishpatim)

[8] Some modern sources expand upon Rav Yosef’s teaching by indicating that towns in Israel should be considered to be at the same priority level as “your own town,” with Jerusalem taking precedence over other cities.

As you may suspect, an online fling is not the same as an actual affair. From a halachic (Jewish legal) perspective, the 7th commandment, “Lo Tinaf” (“Thou shalt not commit adultery”)[1], is violated only by means of actual sexual intercourse (“bee-ah”). Thus, a fling that ‘only’ involves kissing or other acts of intimacy, but does not involve intercourse, is not considered adultery.

Having said that, it is still unethical for your friend’s husband to be having an online fling. With or without any physical contact (let alone intercourse), he is still violating the holy covenantal bonds of his marriage. In the Jewish tradition, marriage is not merely a romantic, social, and/or economic union; it is primarily a spiritual union. This ethos is reflected in the Hebrew word for marriage, “kiddushin,” a word that comes from the root “kadosh” (holy).

Even though the online fling is morally wrong, this does not automatically lead to the conclusion that you should inform your friend about her husband’s misdeeds. As is often the case with ethical dilemmas, there is a tension between two competing Jewish values. In this case, there is a tension between “emet” (truth) and “r’chilut” (tale-bearing, which is a form of forbidden speech)[2]. Among the many sources of the Jewish value of truth is the following biblical verse, “Mi-d’var sheker teer-chak.” (“Distance yourself from a false word.”) [3] Among the many halachic sources about the transgression of tale-bearing is Sefer Chafetz Chayim, Issurey R’chilut 9: 1-12.

If you were to inform your friend, you would be performing an act of forbidden speech even though you would be upholding the Jewish value of truth. If you were not to inform your friend, you would be avoiding the transgression of forbidden speech, but you would be doing so at the expense of upholding the value of truth.

Fortunately, there is something that you can do that would enable you to uphold the value of “emet,” while, at the same time, avoid any forbidden speech utterances. You can do this by confronting your friend’s husband, telling him that you know about his online fling, and strongly urging him to discontinue his virtual affair. By doing this, you would not only be avoiding a transgression, you would actually be performing a mitzvah! It is the commandment that is derived from the following biblical verse, “Ho-chay-ach to-chee-ach et amitecha.” (“You shall surely reubuke your fellow.”)[4] Maimonides elaborates on this mitzvah[5] by saying, “Whoever has the possibility of rebuking a sinner and fails to do so is considered responsible for that sin, for he had the opportunity to rebuke him and possibly prevent him from sin.” This sentiment is also conveyed in a dictum that appears in several places in the Talmud and other rabbinic texts, “Sh’tikah k’hodaah damya.” (“Silence is equivalent to tacit complicity.”) In other words, by saying nothing or doing nothing, you would actually be tacitly condoning the unethical behavior of your friend’s husband. As Jews, we are urged to speak out in the face of injustice or wrongdoing; we should never stand idly by while an immoral act is being committed. Although your friend’s husband has not yet sinned by having any physically intimate contact with his online mistress, your approaching him and rebuking him might prevent him from continuing his online fling or from taking his affair to the next level by consummating it in person.

Bottom line: Do not stand idly by and let this affair continue to go on without any action on your part. It is your responsibility to do something to try and stop this virtual affair. Confront your friend’s husband and try to get him to discontinue his online relationship.

I’m sorry that that your friend’s husband is not behaving like a mensch and that you are in this difficult position. Perhaps your actions will enable your friend’s husband to do teshuvah (repent) and be faithful to his marital partner.

Question: Many families sing Chanukah songs before lighting the menorah, unlike on Shabbat, when the candles are lit before we say the blessings. Is that how it should be or are we supposed to refrain from singing songs and reciting the Chanukah blessings until the menorah has been lit? What is the proper way to do this in Judaism?

According to Jewish law (halacha), one is required to say a blessing before one performs a mitzvah that is “beyn adam la-Makom,” i.e. those rituals and other religious obligations that are “between people and God.”[1] Lighting Chanukah candles & lighting Shabbat candles both fit into this category of mitzvah-observances that require blessings before their performance.

On Chanukah, we are required by Jewish law to recite the blessings “l’hadlik ner shel Chanukah” and “she-asah nisim” (and “she-he-cheyanu” on the first night of Chanukah) before we light the candles. The only other required prayer associated with Chanukah candle-lighting is “Ha-Nerot Hallalu” (“These Lights”), which one begins after the first candle is lit and completes while lighting the other candles.[2] Thus, the only required ‘songs’ on Chanukah are the candle-lighting blessings and “Ha-Nerot Hallalu.” Although the legal codes do not require that we sing “Maoz Tzur” (“Rock of Ages”), it has become a long-standing custom in Ashkenazic households to sing “Maoz Tzur”after the candles are lit. In most Sephardic households, Psalm 30, “Mizmor Shir Chanukat Ha-Bayit,” is recited instead of “Maoz Tzur” after the candles are lit. All other Chanukah songs (including such favorites as “I Had A Little Dreidl,” “Oy Chanukah,” and “S’vivon Sov Sov Sov”) are optional and may be recited before or after the candles are lit.

Regarding Shabbat candle-lighting, it may seem that the mitzvah is performed before the recitation of the blessing, but this is not the case. Striking the match or otherwise igniting the flame of the Shabbat candles does not constitute the mitzvah-act; the mitzvah consists of deriving benefit or enjoyment (“ha-naah”) from the Shabbat candles, which does not take place until after we recite the blessing. The reason we cover our eyes with our hands while reciting the blessing over Shabbat candles is so that we do not derive benefit from the light until after the recitation of the blessing.[3] Covering our eyes enables us to ‘hide’ the candles from view after igniting the flames so that it is ‘as if’ we recited the blessing before lighting the candles.

According to Rabbi Moshe Isserles,[4] there was a dispute among the Rishonim (earlier halachic authorities) over whether the blessing should be recited before or lighting Shabbat candles. Some maintained that the blessing should be said before Shabbat candle-lighting, like all of the blessings that are recited before the performance of ritual mitzvot. Others held that the blessing should be said after the candle-lighting, because once one recites that blessing, one has accepted Shabbat upon her/himself and is then forbidden to kindle a fire[5]. The accepted custom of covering one’s eyes with one’s hands while reciting the blessing, “l’hadlik ner shel Shabbat,” is a means of accommodating both of these points of view; one ignites the flame before reciting the blessings, but one recites the blessings before ‘seeing’ and deriving benefit from the light.

[5]“Igniting a fire” (“mav-eer” or “havarah”) is one of the 39 creative activities (“melachot”) that are forbidden on Shabbat. The list of 39 melachot is enumerated in Mishnah Shabbat 7:2, Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 73a, Rambam’s Mishneh Torah Laws of Shabbat 7:1. The specific prohibition of “igniting a fire” (“mav-eer” or “havarah”) is based on the biblical verse,”Lo t’vaaru esh b’chol moshvotaychem b’yom HaShabbat,” “You shall not kindle a fire in all of your dwelling places on the Sabbath Day,” Exodus 35:3, and is elaborated upon in Rambam’s Mishneh Torah Laws of Shabbat 12:1.

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN ANSWERS PROVIDED HEREIN ARE THOSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL JVO PANEL MEMBERS, AND DO NOT
NECESSARILY REFLECT OR REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE ORTHODOX, CONSERVATIVE OR REFORM MOVEMENTS, RESPECTIVELY.